starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Yamato cannon
How it works I'm a halo fan. i have recently started getting interstd in teh starcraft series. if anyone knwos if teh Yamato cannon is similia to the MAC gun in halo, please tell me teh differences and similiraities. sorry if i mispelled stuff, it is 1:23 a.m. sat jan 15 2011 anonymous THANKS! What's on the page is effectively the explanation of how the Yamato works. If I had to make a comparison in function, the only similarity is really the use of magnatism. For the Yamato, it's concentrating nuclear energy into a beam. For the MAC, magnatism is being used to launch a tungsten shell. So while the magnatism is present in both, the Yamato uses energy, the MAC uses matter.--Hawki 08:45, January 15, 2011 (UTC) Both are also very powerful. A pair of MAC or Yamato blasts can destroy a similarly-sized vessel. Halo vessels tend to be smaller and large Halo vessels can carry two or even three MAC guns. Yamato blasts tend to be used in pairs (as in two battlecruisers would blast a carrier) whereas a Halo vessel would fire one MAC blast to remove Covenant shields followed by waves of Archer missiles. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 13:38, January 15, 2011 (UTC) Plasma Cannon Or Particle Weapon? In Starcraft 1 it refers the Yamato Cannon as a particle weapon but in Starcraft 2 it refers the Yamato Cannon as a plasma cannon. Which one is it? if its both and the Terrans switched to Plasma Weaponry instead of Particle Weaponry shouldn't we mention this on the page? John-Zander (talk) 01:53, October 11, 2016 (UTC) John-Zander :Are the two mutually exclusive? A particle is a building block of matter, plasma is a form of matter where gas is ionized. Apart from that the function of the weapon is the same, namely creating a nuclear explosion, and directing the energy as a beam. :Not opposed to making a note if it's needed, but it seems like semantics.--Hawki (talk) 02:02, October 11, 2016 (UTC) ::I don't think it's noteworthy until we know the mechanics behind both of those technologies, since both aren't real world technologies and vary depending on the setting. For all we know they could be the same. We have other contradictions like that such as gauss rifles in SC1 shooting solid projectiles and in SC2 leaving shells, but no indication of a technological shift in the weapon there. My main objection is that lore sources like the Field Manual seem to imply (albeit not state) the the yamato has been classic standby, which would imply it hasn't had something as drastic as an overhaul of its entire base technology. Subsourian (talk) 03:37, October 11, 2016 (UTC) :For those who say Particle weapons and Plasma weapons are similar enough to where it doesn't matter well it does matter. "A particle-beam weapon uses a high-energy beam of atomic or subatomic particles to damage the target by disrupting its atomic and/or molecular structure. A particle-beam weapon is a type of directed-energy weapon, which directs energy in a particular and focused direction using particles with negligible mass." Take note of the "negligible Mass". Why this is important is that a Plasma weapon would have secondary Kinetic Force like if you pushed something. While Particle weapons have no such thing. Particle Weapons destroy a target by Ripping apart the targets molecular structure as said above. While a Plasma weapon uses both Thermal and Kinetic energy to Destroy a Target. The Output will be Similar but since the Plasma using force it would Move the Target Back. In The Starcraft Cinematic The Inauguration also known as Mengsk's Speech after the first Terran Campaign. It shows a battlecruiser using its Yamato Cannon on a another Battlecruiser and its Rips Apart The Cruiser But The Beam Does not Push The Battlecrusier. In The Gameplay of 1 And in The Second Game Its Shown As a Ball while the first game it was a Ball only in the Game cause it would be harder to make a Beam Ability. While in Number 2 its a Ball in both the Cinematics and the Game also in a Heart of the Swarmm Cinematic a Yamato Cannon is Shown hitting the Hyperion (In A Ball Form) and it does damage and makes the Crew fly away from the Explosion Cause of the Force. A Particle Weapon Wouldn't Do That. Plasma is rarely used as a Beam and is used mostly as a Bolt or A Ball. While Particle Weapons Can be A Bolt though is most Effective as a Beam. My Theory is that The Dominion Switched to Plasma when They made the Type V Yamato Cannon. I Feel Like it Should Be At Least Mention Or Ever a Slight Revise of the Article, But its Your Guys's Choice i just felt like pointing it out and saying my oppinion John-Zander (talk) 21:43, October 11, 2016 (UTC))John-Zander :Please at Least mention in like the Notes section or something the Name Change From Particle to Plasma even if you don't agree with my Statement above John-Zander (talk) 01:56, October 12, 2016 (UTC) John-Zander ::I've added/altered to the article. I think it's too speculative to label it as a shift in technology - I don't have access to the field manual right now, but at the least, the mechanism of firing the weapon (nuclear explosion) has remained constant, so I think the difference is more stylistic. It might be worth mentioning the "ball vs. beam" thing, but to do that, I'd need to scour EU material as well if I was to make a comprehensive note entry.--Hawki (talk) 04:17, October 12, 2016 (UTC) :Ok well Thanks to listening to me ramble. Its just that i love the Battlecruiser, its Yamato Cannon And Sci-Fi Weaponry so XD John-Zander (talk) 20:45, October 12, 2016 (UTC) John-Zander :One more thing. Why did you guys Think it was a Particle Weapon? In The Manuel It Doesn't say That it Is https://gyazo.com/bde728b40f18646a9428e60c9dff1a94 Heres A Pic John-Zander (talk) 21:08, October 12, 2016 (UTC) John-Zander ::With that information sounds fair to retreat that information in the notes about the conflict then. Another option is add a citation needed flag to it, until another source its found for it being a particle cannon before retcon... CombatMagic (talk) 21:43, October 12, 2016 (UTC) :If you want Proof of Picture i have A Link For The Manuel Here https://www.scribd.com/doc/25478804/StarCraft-Manual John-Zander (talk) 21:54, October 12, 2016 (UTC) John-Zander :Also from it Saying in SC2 that its a Plasma Weapon and no Contradicting Info Can We Safely Say that it is A Plasma Cannon and Edit The Page to Reflect That? John-Zander (talk) 21:59, October 12, 2016 (UTC) John-Zander